Columnist blasts conservative Catholics

[Riley259]

Globe columnist Eileen McNamara rants about “conservative catholics” in Massachusetts. She cleverly paints a picture of overwrought zeolots who are on the fringes of the Catholic church. Ironically, she ends up demonizing the only group of Catholics in this state that are actually faithful to the Magisterium - so it goes here in this crazy state.

boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/12/11/zealots_mask_real_struggles/

 

[tom.wineman]

Did someone put some mind altering substance in the water supply up there ?

 

[Celia]

She sounds really bitter, and mocking. I feel kinda bad for her.

 

[steveandersen]

Celia:

She sounds really bitter, and mocking. I feel kinda bad for her.

who, the author or the web site she was critiquing?

 

[BillP]

Just out of idle curiosity, is any part of what Ms. MacNamara wrote untrue?

Are the quotes acurate? Is her characterization of those people factual?

 

[fix]

BillP:

Just out of idle curiosity, is any part of what Ms. MacNamara wrote untrue?

Are the quotes acurate? Is her characterization of those people factual?

Here is one quick example:

There’s C.J. Doyle, the excitable executive director of Catholic Action League, who has been churning out dyspeptic press releases for more than a decade accusing anyone who questions the church of being an anti-Catholic bigot.

Is this fair or honest?

 

[Vatican_II]

BillP:

Just out of idle curiosity, is any part of what Ms. MacNamara wrote untrue?

Are the quotes acurate? Is her characterization of those people factual?

The better question would be “Is any part of what Ms. MacNamara wrote true?” Her blatant attempt to discredit the protestors by saying that they want Cardinal Law back is certainly disceitful. Did she go out and poll the protestors or is like most of her column an outlet for her own prejudices?

True followers of Christ are called to bear witness to His light and His truth. Sad to say such Catholics are in the minority. Of the 60 plus milliion “Catholics” in the United States 75% do not attend mass regularly. Of the remaining 15 million only 30% believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Of the 4.5 million remaining many approve of contraceptives, abortion and homosexual acts.

St. John, the beloved apostle, said it well in his first letter, chapter 1, Those who say they know Christ and do not obey His commandments are liars.

:tsktsk:

 

[BlindSheep]

The statistics are certainly troubling. I would be hesitant to place the blame entirely on the shoulders of the dissenting laypeople, though. Many of them are uninformed, having gleaned their opinions from liberal priests, theologians, teachers etc. They are also exposed to a lot of propaganda in our secular society painting the Catholic Church as irrelevant and old fashioned. Those of us who appreciate the value of the fullness of truth in the Church have to combat such misinformation without losing our patience; our words and logic speak to people’s minds, but our attitude speaks to their heart. We need to win both hearts and minds.

 

[BillP]

fix:

Here is one quick example:

Is this fair or honest?

Beats me. I am not familiar with the man. But it could be.

 

[BillP]

Vatican II:

Sad to say such Catholics are in the minority. Of the 60 plus milliion “Catholics” in the United States 75% do not attend mass regularly. Of the remaining 15 million only 30% believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Of the 4.5 million remaining many approve of contraceptives, abortion and homosexual acts.
:tsktsk:

Well, lets see, your say that only 25% of Catholics attend Mass and only 30% of that 25% believe in the “True Presence” so we’re down to 7.5% and according to you, “many” of the 7.5%

approve of contraceptives, abortion and homosexual acts.

Yep, sounds like a “conservative” or “orthodox” Catholics are a “fringe” group to me.

What was your objection again?

 

[Vatican_II]

BillP:

Well, lets see, your say that only 25% of Catholics attend Mass and only 30% of that 25% believe in the “True Presence” so we’re down to 7.5% and according to you, “many” of them

Yep, sounds like a “conservative” or “orthodox” Catholics are a “fringe” group to me.

What weas your objection again?

That would be true if the only criteria for being a follower of Christ, a Catholic, is baptism. Catholics In Name Only are as I pointed out with St. John are liars. It is like the Faith Alone myth, faith without good works is dead. I keep such people in my prayers for God’s conversion but I will not be lead by them in the conduct of my faith.

 

[fix]

BillP:

Beats me. I am not familiar with the man. But it could be.

Check out the views of this man and compare them to the views of the columnist. I did. One is consistent with the magisterial techings of the Church and one is consistent with hard left relativism.

 

[BillP]

Vatican II:

That would be true if the only criteria for being a follower of Christ, a Catholic, is baptism. Catholics In Name Only are as I pointed out with St. John are liars. It is like the Faith Alone myth, faith without good works is dead. I keep such people in my prayers for God’s conversion but I will not be lead by them in the conduct of my faith.

I still don’t think you can characterize a small protion of 7.5% as anything other than “fringe”.

Well, if you are rejecting 92.5%+ of the members of a Church (including much of the clergy and hierarchy) then sounds to me like you refuse to be lead by anyone other than those you agree with.

 

[BillP]

fix:

Check out the views of this man and compare them to the views of the columnist. I did. One is consistent with the magisterial techings of the Church and one is consistent with hard left relativism.

The point is not whether the columnist agreed with the fellow, she obviously doesn’t. The point is did she mischaracterize hime? Did she misrepresent his position?

Is he

excitable executive director of Catholic Action League, who has been churning out dyspeptic press releases for more than a decade accusing anyone who questions the church of being an anti-Catholic bigot.

Or not?

 

[fix]

BillP:

the point is not whetehr the columnist agreed with the fellow, she obviously doesn’t. The point is did she mischaracterize hime? Did she misrepresent his position?

Is he

Or not?

I have not read anything that would be consistent with claiming he characterizes every one who questions as a bigot. That one statement is enough to show she is untruthful.

 

[miguel]

Riley259:

Globe columnist Eileen McNamara rants…

Here is an Irish daughter minus her Irish faith. She probably wears the green on St Patrick’s Day and has no idea who St Patrick was. Sad.

Riley259:

She cleverly paints a picture of overwrought zeolots who are on the fringes of the Catholic church. Ironically, she ends up demonizing the only group of Catholics in this state that are actually faithful to the Magisterium - so it goes here in this crazy state.

…and as such, the only group who will push for real reform…
Eileen McNamara:

They are a tiny band of antiabortion zealots, being exploited by the hierarchy in hopes of promoting a backlash against reformers outraged by the criminal conduct of predatory priests and the bishops who protected them.

Here we go defending baby killing again. Seriously, have the Irish completely lost their minds? (I’m Irish so I can say that.) Who should we trust to rid the clergy of predators? People who defend baby killing? Give me a break. Isn’t baby killing the ultimate abuse? This is twisted folks. We’re supposed to believe those “antiabortion zealots” are all part of a plot against the needed clerical reform. If she was my daughter, I’d disown her.

 

[BlindSheep]

BillP:

I still don’t think you can characterize a small protion of 7.5% as anything other than “fringe”.

Well, if you are rejecting 92.5%+ of the members of a Church (including much of the clergy and hierarchy) then sounds to me like you refuse to be lead by anyone other than those you agree with.

So it is insignificant that “those we agree with” includes the POPE?

 

[Michael_C]

I get the impression from this article that Eileen Mcnamara is not Catholic. She comes off as pro abortion, pro gay marriage and her defense against the people that oppose these things is to dismiss them as a small insignificant group of radicals and lead us to believe these people support the scandals.

I’m not sure who Eileen Mcnamara represents but it’s not faithful Catholics.

 

[malibu364]

I read the linked article, and this entire thread and, quite frankly, I don’t see where the woman’s opinion is an anti-Catholic rant. Her charge in the column, which is an opinion, not straight news, is that she feels the Boston archdiocesan hierarchy is using anti-abortion “zealots” as the columnist calls them, to counter the clamoring of the “reformers”, who want to change the hierarchical structure of the Church in the wake of the clergy sex abuse scandals.

Now I don’t really believe that the Boston archdiocese is promoting any such activity, but if it were taking place, it certainly would deflect attention from the impact of the scandals that have rocked the Boston archdiocese, as well as, those in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and elsewhere.

It appears to me that she is suggesting that real answers to the future of that diocese and the Church will come from neither the “fanatical” faithful Catholics, nor the “dissident” faithful (I know, I know, it’s an oxymoron), both seeking attention, but from, as she puts it, those “sincere people in the pews [who] are struggling with how best to rebuild the trust that was shattered by revelations of official complicity in the clergy sexual abuse scandal.”

In as much as I believe this is the point she is trying to make, I agree, in large part, with this general proposition and but not necessarily her characterizations of any person or group of people. In my opinion, those charging anti-Catholic bias are looking for things that aren’t there.

 

[fix]

Her opinion piece uses words like fanatics and zealots. The entire flavor of the piece is ramped up to make the case those in favor of orthodoxy are extremists. Holding such a view really shows a lack of informed understanding of the faith, or a particular bias against Church teachings.